Luke 10
For a side-by-side English translation of the text of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord and Luke 10, see Luke Chapter 10
Summary:
From Ernest Evans on Adv. Marcion IV: Appendix 2: In 10:21 he omits [Father], along with and of earth.
Details:
Luke 10:1-11 – The Mission of the Seventy
Epiphanius has no comment on these verses, but Tertullian spends the first two-thirds of his chapter 24 on the events described in Lk 10:1-11. He quotes from, or refers clearly to, every verse except Mcg 10:2, 3 and 9:
He chose also seventy other missionaries [10:1] besides the twelve… The former were thrust forth into a desert, but the latter were sent into cities [10:1]… He cut down their supplies when they could be replenished through the cities [10:4, 7, 8]... Even shoes He forbade them to carry [10:4]… "No one," says He, "shall you salute by the way." [10:4]… So also the Lord commands: "Into whatsoever house they enter, let them say, Peace be to it." [10:5]… "The laborer is worthy of his hire." [10:7]… That the kingdom of God was neither new nor unheard of, He in this way affirmed, while at the same time He bids them announce that it was near at hand. [10:9]… He likewise adds, that they should say to such as would not receive them [10:10]: "Notwithstanding be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near unto you." [10:11]… So, again, He commands that the dust be shaken off against them, as a testimony -- the very particles of their ground which might cleave to the sandal, not to mention any other sort of communication with them. [10:11]
Tertullian refers to seventy missionaries rather than seventy-two. The NET notes:
There is a difficult textual problem here and in v. 17, where the number is either “seventy” (א A C L W Θ Ξ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï and several church fathers and early versions) or “seventy-two” (Ì75 B D 0181 pc lat as well as other versions and fathers). The more difficult reading is “seventy-two,” since scribes would be prone to assimilate this passage to several OT passages that refer to groups of seventy people (Num 11:13-17; Deut 10:22; Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1 et al.); this reading also has slightly better ms support. “Seventy” could be the preferred reading if scribes drew from the tradition of the number of translators of the LXX, which the Letter of Aristeas puts at seventy-two (TCGNT127), although this is far less likely. All things considered, “seventy-two” is a much more difficult reading and accounts for the rise of the other.
It is conceivable that Tertullian did not see vv. 10:2-3, 9 in Mcg, and perhaps the prohibition on carrying purse and scrip in Mcg 10:4a. He does state that “Christ commanded His disciples not to carry even a staff for their journey,” which could be a reference back to Mcg 9:3, but given the mention of “Christ” rather than “Marcion’s Christ” is more likely to be taken from Mt 10:10a. It is difficult to see how removing Lk 10:2-3, 9, or the other possible small differences, would have favored Marcion, so given Epiphanius’ lack of comment it is unlikely that this passage differed from what either saw in Luke.
Luke 10:12-15 – Chorazin and Bethsaida
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. [10:12] Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. [10:13] But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. [10:14] And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. [10:15]
Tertullian makes no reference to these verses, although he does refer to both of the surrounding verses, vv. 10:11 and 16. Epiphanius also makes no mention of any of these verses, even though overall they have almost exact parallels in Mt 11:21-24:
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. [Mt 11:21] But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. [Mt 11:22] And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. [Mt 11:23] But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. [Mt 11:24]
This would normally suggest that they were also present in Mcg, however the order of these verses in Luke is different, effectively reading as Mt 11:24, 21-22, 23a. This ‘re-purposing’ of the verses from Matthew, together with the lack of mention from either Tertullian or Epiphanius, is perhaps an indication that they were a later addition to Luke. The reconstruction of Mcg by Theodor Von Zahn omits Mcg 10:12-15, as also do Harnack and Tsutsui according to BeDuhn:
Since the woes upon the cities of Galilee and Judea were well suited to Tertullian’s and Epiphanius’ critiques of Marcion’s interpretation of the teachings of Jesus (cf. their use of the woes from 6.24ff.), and yet go unmentioned by them, they almost certainly were absent from the Evangelion (so Harnack and Tsutsui).
However, whether present in Mcg or not, there is no evidence that either Tertullian or Epiphanius saw any differences here, so if these verses were not present in Mcg, they were not present in their copies of Luke either.
Luke 10:16-20 – The Fall of Satan
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. [10:16] And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. [10:17] And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. [10:18] Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. [10:19] Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. [10:20]
Tertullian ends his chapter 24 by using Mcg 10:16-20 to describe how by “way of faith he [Jesus] promises this utter crippling and subjugation of all noxious animals.” He refers directly only to parts of Mcg 10:16 and 19:
He that despises you, despises me" [10:16] … Who is He that shall bestow "the power of treading on serpents and scorpions? [10:19]
Tertullian makes reference to Lk/Mcg 10:20 in his chapter 7, where he discusses Jesus’ rebuke of “the spirit of an unclean devil" in Lk/Mcg 4:33, and that he did not want his disciples to “rejoice” in this ability:
… whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation.
Whether he is here referring to Luke or Mcg is not certain, but either way it is clear that he knows Lk 10:20, and does not suggest that Mcg read anything different here. Because Tertullian does not suggest that he saw any variation in this passage, and because Epiphanius does not mention any of these verses, we assume that Mcg 10:16-20 were the same as in Luke.
Luke 10:21 – Thanking the Father
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in [the holy] spirit, and said, [10:21a] I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: [10:21b] even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. [10:21c]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to Lk 10:21a, so we do not know what either saw here in Mcg. This is unfortunate, as there are multiple differences in the mss here, involving the omission or inclusion of “Jesus,” “in,” and “Holy.” In addition, the location of “Jesus” varies, giving rise to more than 10 different variant readings. All we can say is that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius saw anything of note. However, at the beginning of his chapter 25 Tertullian quotes the rest of Mcg 10:21:
For He says, "I thank you, and own You, Lord of heaven, because those things which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, You have revealed unto babes.” (Evans has “and give praise” instead of “and own you”)
Epiphanius confirms part of Tertullian’s quote:
“I thank thee, Lord of Heaven.” But he did not have, “and earth” or “Father.” He is shown up, however; for further on he had “Even so, Father.” (Scholion 22)
Tertullian and Epiphanius both report that Mcg did not have “Father” or “and earth,” and this is supported by P45 and 27*. The Pseudo Clementine Homily XVIII, 15 (late 3rd or early 4th century) has a variant that is also close to the text reported by Tertullian, although here it is noted that this is not the original form of this verse:
Blame your own teacher, who said: ‘I thank you, Lord of heaven and earth, that what was concealed from the wise, you have revealed to suckling babes.” And Peter said: “this is not the way in which the statement was made…”
Tertullian and Epiphanius agree that Mcg 10:21 differed from the version we know in Luke, although each see differences not noted by the other. Baring Gould suggests that:
The version in Luke's Gospel may have been tampered with by Marcion, lest God should appear harsh in hiding "those things from the wise and prudent." But it is more likely that Marcion's text is the correct one. Why should Christ thank God that he has hidden the truth from the wise and prudent? The reading in Marcion’s Gospel is not only a better one, but it also appears to be an independent one.
As removing just one of the two instances of “Father” seems pointless, it is unlikely that this difference originated with Marcion. Equally, it would seem unlikely that Marcion would remove “and earth” from Mcg 10:21, when he left similar references to earth in Mcg 5:24 and 11:2. The existence of a number of different variants of this verse also suggests that Marcion is unlikely to have made these changes.
Luke 10:22 – The Father and Son Swap
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. [10:22]
Epiphanius does not comment on this verse, but Tertullian quotes the whole verse in his chapter 25. He writes:
"All things," He says, "are delivered unto me of my Father." … but "no man knoweth who the Father is, but the Son; and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him."
According to Tertullian, in Mcg the references to the Father and Son were swapped, and, given his lack of comment, this was also the case in his copy of Luke. Although we do not see this order today, there is evidence that it did exist early in the 2nd century, and possibly was the original reading. C. 135 Justin Martyr related the following in Dial 100:
… but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father.' and, 'No man knows the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'
Although this is exactly the form that Tertullian quotes, it is clear that Justin does not associate this text with Marcion, as he states that it was “in the Gospel,” perhaps suggesting that he only recognized the existence of one written gospel. Around 45 years later, in Adv. Haer, IV 6, Irenaeus quotes the close parallel at Mt 11:27 and indicates that he knows Lk 10:22, with both having the order that we currently see in Luke. Interestingly, he also states that it was the same in Mark, although we have no ms evidence that this text was ever in Mark:
For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage.
However, Irenaeus then states that he also knows a variant having the order quoted by Tertullian:
They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son, nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord’s advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.
Irenaeus does not state who “they” are, but he follows this with a reference to Christ appearing as man “in the times of Tiberius Cæsar,” which is possibly an oblique reference either to the opening words of Mcg or an early version of Luke in which chapters 1-2 were not present. Given these quotes from Irenaeus and Justin, it is certain that Tertullian reported what he saw in Mcg, and, as he did not note this as a difference, it is also likely to be what he had in his copy of Luke, and so possibly this is “the gospel” that Justin was referring to.
Luke 10:23-24 – What Did the Prophets and Kings See or Hear?
And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: [10:23] For I tell you, that prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. [10:24]
Epiphanius makes no comment on these verses, while Tertullian appears to have seen a shorter variant of this passage. After not having mentioned Jesus turning to his disciples or speaking to them privately, he writes:
If you look also into the next words, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things which you see, [10:23b] for I tell you that prophets have not seen the things which you see," [10:24a] you will find that they follow from the sense above, that no man indeed had come to the knowledge of God as he ought to have done, since even the prophets had not seen the things which were being seen under Christ.
It appears that Tertullian is specifically indicating that “Blessed are the eyes …” follows directly after what he had previously quoted (the whole of Mcg 10:22), i.e. that he did not see: “And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately,” at the beginning of Mcg 10:23. However, in some Bibles the text of Lk 10:23a is found at the beginning of Lk 10:22. Willker comments:
In the Byzantine text Jesus turns round to his disciples in two subsequent verses. This is very probably in error. It is possible that an early ancestor of the Byzantine text copied this accidentally from the next verse. It is also possible that the scribe wanted to move the verse from verse 23 to verse 22, but forgot to delete it in verse 23, or he deleted it incompletely and the next copyist copied it in error. If the words were omitted to avoid repetition, they would have been omitted in verse 23 and not in the first place (so Weiss).
As Tertullian does not refer to this text either in Mcg 10:22 or 10:23 it is not possible to tell whether it was present at the beginning of either verse. In addition to not mentioning Mcg 10:23a Tertullian also does not mention the words “and kings” from Mcg 10:24a, nor anything from Mcg 10:24b relating to hearing.
Mss D, it(a, d, e, ff2, i, l), vgms also do not have “and kings,” while Bezae has this longer version of Lk 10:23, omitting “privately,’ but referring to hearing in addition to seeing:
But he turned him unto the disciples, and said unto them, Blessed are the eyes which see what ye see, and [the ears that] hear things that ye hear. (… et audientes quae auditis)
A few Latin mss (b, q, r1, vgms) also refer to “righteous men” (el iusti) instead of kings, while 1424 has both. Matthew also has a parallel:
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. [Mt 13:16] For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. [Mt 13:17]
Of these variants the one we see today in Luke appears to be the least likely to be original, as it is the only variant that refers to hearing in the second verse but not the first. Given that Mt 13:16-17 refer to both seeing and hearing it is difficult to see why ‘hearing’ would be omitted from just one verse, or indeed why it was not subsequently corrected. It is also hard to see why hearing would be omitted at all, and so it appears that the shorter variant seen by Tertullian in Mcg is most likely to be the original, from which the other variants were created by the addition of hearing/ears to seeing/eyes, and also the addition of kings or righteous men to the prophets.
Luke 10:25-28 – Inheriting Eternal Life (1)
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? [10:25] He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? [10:26] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. [10:27] And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. [10:28]
The question in Lk 10:25 is unique to Luke. Although Mark and Matthew contain questions at the same place in their respective narratives, they are both very different from that in Luke, although similar to each other:
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? [Mk 12:28]
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? [Mt 22:35a]
At the end of his chapter 25 Tertullian quotes from v. 10:25 in “the true Gospel” (i.e. Luke):
In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes to the Lord and asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Tertullian does not begin the question with “Master” (or “Teacher” - Didaskale), suggesting that here his copy of Luke followed Bezae (both D and d). Tertullian continues by noting that the word “eternal” is missing from the question in Mcg 10:25, and then quotes Jesus’ answer from Mcg 10:27:
In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to have consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law promises to prolong, and the Lord to have therefore answered him according to the law, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength," [10:27] since the question was concerning the conditions of mere life.
Tertullian does not quote the end of Mcg 10:27 and makes no mention of Mcg 10:28. While Epiphanius quotes none of Mcg 10:27, he does refer to it in Scholion 23:
He said to the lawyer, “What is written in the law?” [10:26a] And after the lawyer’s answer [10:27] he replied, “Thou hast answered right. This do, and thou shalt live.” [10:28]
Epiphanius then expands on this in Elenchus 23:
(a) Since he is truth, the Son of God deceived no one who inquired about life, for he had come for man’s life. Since life is his concern and since he indicates to the man who is keeping the Law that the Law is life - and since he told the person who answered in terms of the Law that he had spoken rightly and “This do and thou shalt live”
(b) who could be cracked enough to believe Marcion when he blasphemes against the God who has granted men both the Law and the grace of the Gospel and be carried away with one who has received none of his teaching either from the Law or from the Holy Spirit?
Epiphanius does not quote “how readest thou,” but we know that he does not always quote everything in full, and he gives no indication that here Mcg differed from Luke. However, this is also true regarding “eternal” in Mcg 10:25. Epiphanius obviously knew this verse, as he mentions the person “who inquired about life,” but although in his Elenchus he mentions “life” four times, he never once mentions “eternal life.” This (negative) evidence does suggest that Epiphanius also did not see “eternal” in Mcg, and his lack of comment on this also suggests that it was not in his copy of Luke either. Even Tertullian seems to suggest that the word may have been a later addition to Luke, when he writes:
It matters not then, whether the word eternal has been interpolated by us…
Sense suggests that a more accurate translation of the question reported by Tertullian would be: “What doing, shall I follow or pursue life?” He points out that the word:
... translated consequar by Tertullian, could not have been the Greek for “shall inherit.” … “The lawyer's question was not regarding future life in the next world, but regarding the course of conduct to be pursued in this life. The Greek word 'to inherit' was a later substitution.
It is clear that Mcg (and it would seem the copies of Luke used by both Tertullian and Epiphanius) did not contain ‘eternal’ in Lk/Mcg 10:25. However, this verse is one half of a doublet, and the other half, at v. 18:18, does contain ‘eternal’ in both Mcg and Luke. Cassels contrasts the two verses:
The omission of this word [in v. 10:25] is supposed to have been made in order to make the passage refer back to the God of the Old Testament, who promises merely long life on earth for keeping the commandments, whilst it is only in the Gospel that eternal life is promised. But in the corresponding passage, 18:18, the ‘eternal’ is retained, and the question of the ruler is: "Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life."
Although Cassels notes the inclusion of “eternal” in Mcg 18:18 he does not note the difference between the parallels to Lk 10:25 and the parallels to Lk 18:18. While Mcg 18:18 has very close parallels at Mk 10:17 and Mt 19:16 (both including “eternal” in their questions), the question in Lk 10:25 is unique to Luke, with Jesus being asked a completely different question regarding the commandments in the (loose) parallels at Mk 12:28 and Mt 22:35-36, which are perhaps not really parallels to Lk 10:25 at all.
Omitting “eternal” from Mcg 10:25 but not from Mcg 18:18 could perhaps have been a mistake by Marcion, but it is perhaps more likely to be a later addition to Luke to harmonize the two verses. This possibility is also suggested by that fact that Epiphanius makes no mention of this omission, indicating that he saw nothing of note here. The answer given in Lk 10:27 is taken from two Old Testament verses:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [Deut 6:5]
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. [Lev 19:18]
The version of Lk 10:27 we see has “and with all thy mind” inserted between the Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 portions, possibly because of confusion between heart and mind. This possibility is supported by the NET, which reads “mind” instead of “heart” in Deut 6:5, and then notes:
Heb “heart.” In OT physiology the heart (לֵב, לֵבָב; levav, lev) was considered the seat of the mind or intellect, so that one could think with one’s heart. See A. Luc, NIDOTTE 2:749-54.
Tertullian quotes a shorter version of Mcg 10:27, missing “and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself,” and thereby matching Deut 6:5. Bezae omits “and with all thy mind,” but does conclude with “and thy neighbour as thy self.” Although Tertullian has several things missing from his quotes (compared with what we see in Luke), he only notes the lack of “eternal” in Mcg, suggesting that the rest of the text was as he expected. The omissions noted above in Bezae therefore support the view that the copy of Luke used by Tertullian had neither “Master” in Lk 10:25, nor “and with all thy mind; and (possibly) “and thy neighbour as thyself” in Lk 10:27, and that all of these were added to Luke later.
Luke 10:29-37 – The Good Samaritan
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? [10:29] And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. [10:30]
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to the parable of the Good Samaritan, and it has no parallels in either Matthew or Mark. Although it is present in both P45 and P75, BeDuhn notes:
It goes unmentioned by any of the witnesses to Marcion’s text, most tellingly by Pseudo-Ephrem A, which gives orthodox interpretations of the parables found in Marion’s gospel. The story is first attested in Clement of Alexandria and P45 in the early third century.
Luke 10:38-42 – Jesus Visits Mary and Martha
As with the parable of the Good Samaritan, the passage describing Jesus’ visit to Mary and Martha exists in both P45 and P75, has no parallels in either Matthew or Mark, and neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to it. Even though there is a Western non-interpolation at the end of Lk 10:41 and the beginning of Lk 10:42, with the text not present in D, it(a, b, c, d, e, ff2, i, l, r1), Sy-S, we have no information from either Tertullian or Epiphanius as to whether this text was present in Mcg or not.
As it is likely that Tertullian’s copy of Luke was both Western and in Old Latin, it is possible that this text was also not present in his copy of Luke, and from his lack of comment so also in Mcg.
Next Chapter: Luke 11